Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looking at some statistics instead of beliving on stereotypes wouldn't hurt.
As Churchill used to say : "there are lies, bloody lies, and statistics" : I live there , so I know exactly what is happening .
agreed, the French "indigenous" birthrate is a bit higher than in other EU countries (but not higher than Ireland's, the UK's, Sweden's, ,or the Benelux's), that is slightly above replacement level (2, 2 children per women on average after a low of 1, 9 20 years ago, the replacement level being 2, 1).
200, 000 is simply the overshoot between 600, 000 annual deaths (stable) and 800 000 births (slightly growing).
Then you must add 100, 000 legal immigrants (source ! official statistics office from left wing government INSEE) and an unknown (but important ) number of illegal immigrants like those :
I live there too and I also know what is happening. I know that foreign immigrants contribute to the growth however they are a minority. Just like I said the majority of the population increase are births and not migrations unlike what many people believe.
I think some of these city loss stats are misleading because in some countries like the US the city population is the city limits, which might only include part of the metropolitan area. Like cities like Detroit and Cleveland have lost a lot of people in the city limits, but the metro is still either holding steady or growing. It's just people have been moving from the city into the suburbs for decades, but with gentrification this trend might slow or reverse. In many cities in Australia, Canada, the US, inner cities are being revitalised and more people moving back in.
Just like I said the majority of the population increase are births and not migrations unlike what many people believe.
well in both cases, population growth is not a positive anyway, and worldwide population explosion is environmentally unsustainable. Socially it's also a negative since work is more and more done by robotics anyway, hence most immigrants come to France either to enjoy the lavish social aids (foreigners have even priority over French nationals in Council flats and enjoy free health care) or to be employed in parasitic industries like stuffing letterboxes with unwanted ads or digging holes and refilling them in the Streets. You're free to defend that absurd system of course, but not to lie in finding positives in it that aren't there.
The development of cities is becoming more and more polarized into winners and losers.
Across the world, many cities are losing inhabitants faster than buildings. Shrinking cities can be found in the post-industrial rustbelts of the American Midwest, eastern Europe and northern England.
There are three dominant reasons of shrinkage: economical, structural, and /or political changes.
Suburbanization is mostly visible in the USA.
Cities rise and fall, sometimes several times, changing shape as they go. The only part of the world where shrinking cities are almost unknown is sub-Saharan Africa.
Russia and Eastern Europe tend to be the fastest out of the block, with South Korea and Italy following. Soon most of Europe and East Asia will suffer a similar faith.
Here are few examples:
Prague: 1,212,000 (1990) to 1,162,000 (2010)
Seoul: 10,544,000 (1990) to 9,773,000 (2010)
St. Petersburg: 4,989,000 (1990) to 4,575,000 (2010)
Budapest: 2,005,000 (1990) to 1,706,000 (2010)
New Orleans: 496,938 (1990) to 343,829(2010)
Detroit: 1 849 568 (1950) to 921 758 (2003) - 50,2% decline Manchester lost already half of their population over just two decades.
Is your city shrinking?
I think Manchester had had at least two local government boundary changes in the past 40 years, that might largely account for that. I know that the poulation of Greater Manchester is about 2 and a half million which is pretty big.
Belfast had over half a million in the early 60s but the troubles virtually halfed that in a decade as hundreds of thousands (including our family) moved to towns near by. I think it might be rising again though. And they're not all Polish.
When we moved to Bangor with thousands of others in the early 70s, the town had around 25,000. It shot up to 50 thou in a decade. Now its well over 60,000 possibly 70.
Its the same with other towns outside of Belfast, like Lisburn, Carrick, Newtownards and Newtownabbey.
Yes, one has to be careful here. Many cities especially in the US but Europe also are gaining big numbers in the suburbs but losing population in the central cities so it may appear they are in decline. Most countries include population figures for city limit population not suburban.
In the case of Dallas, Texas the city proper grew not appreciably over the past 10 yrs to 1.2 million people. But the metropolitan area is fast approaching 7 million. If you didn't know this, you might think that Sydney Australia was bigger with around 4.5 million people, but that figure includes the broader region. Dallas, in fact, is a colossus in comparison.
Paris loses people also because it's incredibly expensive.
In my city in Lyon, there is a neighborhood that used to be very boho-chic for the last 30 years which is now full of Parisians who can't afford to live there anymore. The people who used to live in that neighborhood have in turned invaded my ex-neighborhood, which used to be full of immigrants and students and which is now rapidly gentrifying. The people from ex-neighborhood are slowling migrating to near suburbs and peripheral neighborhoods which used to be unknown by anyone who sticked to the downtown part.
I think there are Parisians migrating to every downtown of most major french cities because they cannot afford living in Paris anymore and don't want to live an hour and a half away from the center, yet still want to live in a big town, even if none of them is remotely close to Paris in terms of population.
Yes Paris might lose some population because of its expensiveness, but that doesn't apply universally. People are still pouring into New York City despite its fearsome expensiveness. Well over 8,000, 000 and climbing still.
So contrary to an urban legend few countries are actually losing population and it's logical since world population increases to the tune of 80 million a year. Even countries with sustainable growth rates (like in Europe) are increasing because of the unabated flow of immigrants. The only European country that acually losed population is Bulgaria, because a big % of its Roma population fled to Western Europe. And moreover as many posters have stated, population is spreading more and more from urban cores to hitherto rural or semi rural areas, the same thing happens in France by the way as in the USA, only the average overall density in France is 120 persons per sq km (same as in China by the way) while in the US it's still is a reasonable 30 per sqkm.
I think some of these city loss stats are misleading because in some countries like the US the city population is the city limits, which might only include part of the metropolitan area. Like cities like Detroit and Cleveland have lost a lot of people in the city limits, but the metro is still either holding steady or growing. It's just people have been moving from the city into the suburbs for decades, but with gentrification this trend might slow or reverse. In many cities in Australia, Canada, the US, inner cities are being revitalised and more people moving back in.
Canada? Canadian cities never had people leaving the " inner city ".
This is a very misleading thread. In reality most of the large urban cities in the west are growing. Many lost population from 1960 thru 1990 or so, but since then the majority have been growing or are stable. Much of the lose was to due to shrinking household sizes such as going from six in a household to three or four. Examples such as Paris, London, New York, Milan and many others where losing population and now have been growing at stable rates. Very few large cities in developed nations are shrinking.
I suggest using data from 2000 until present. The results will be much different.
A Few examples:
All the lows are within the past 30 years
Low Present Population
New York 7.0 mil 8.4 mil
London 6.6 mil 8.6 mil
Paris 2.1 mil 2.3 mil
Milan 1.2 mil 1.3 mil
Berlin 3.0 mil 3.4 mil
Madrid 3.0 mil 3.2 mil
Washington DC 572K 658K
Last edited by Allan Trafton; 05-31-2015 at 01:51 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
